Modelling at Stilling Basin of River Infrastructures – An Overview PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

Modelling at Stilling Basin of River Infrastructures – An Overview

1
Dian Indrawati, 2Mohammad Bagus Adityawan, 3Agustin Purwanti, 4Rono Hadinagoro,
5
Achmad Hariadi
1,3,4
Departement of Civil Engineering Universitas Jenderal Achmad Yani, Cimahi, Indonesia
2
Departement of Civil Engineering Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung, Indonesia
5
Cimanuk-Cisanggarung Water Resources Agency, Cirebon, Indonesia
Email: dian.indrawati@lecture.unjani.ac.id
Dian Indrawati, Mohammad Bagus Adityawan, Agustin Purwanti, Rono Hadinagoro,
Achmad Hariadi: Modelling at Stilling Basin of River Infrastructures – An Overview --
Palarch’s Journal Of Archaeology Of Egypt/Egyptology 17(6). ISSN 1567-214x
Keywords: Stilling basin; Machine learning; Flow modelling; Physical modelling;
numerical modelling

ABSTRACT
Stilling basin is a crucial structure at dam, weir, check dam and groundsill. Those
infrastructure is used to reduce an excessive energy from spillway to minimize scouring at the
downstream so that the flow beyond does not endanger the downstream river bed. There are a lot
of types stilling basin that are claimed as an appropriate energy dissipator for any particular
conditions. However, there were a lot of facts that those stilling basin are crushed. On the other
hand, engineers also need a model which not only able to capture the problems, but also has
time, space and economic efficiency. This paper presented four modelling system include
physical, numerical, artificial intellegence and deep learning method for developing scouring
characteristics below the spillway, and how deep learning becomes one of promising tool to
improve capability of computional flow modelling.
1. Introduction
In order to maintain river morphology below the spillway of river
infrastructures, engineers developed stilling basin due to dissipate high-energy
water flow after hydraulic jump occurred. However, the flow sometimes has
excessive energy which is not only destroyed the infrastructure, but also
affected the river and infrastructures below. Therefore, stilling basin failures to
manage energy force and minimize scouring effect at the downstream.

8428
Modelling at Stilling Basin of River Infrastructures – An Overview PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

Several types of stilling basin have been developed by both researchers and
hydraulics engineers for modelling a drop condition between supercritical flow
to subcritical flow in the downstream of spillway using laboratory experiments
on physical modelling (Schoklitsch, 1932) (Eggenberger, 1944) (Chow, 1959)
(Shalash, 1959) (Novak, 1961) (Catakli, et al., 1973) (Reclamation, 1978)
(Uymaz, 1988) (Pillai, et al., 1989) (Rice & Kadavy, 1993) (Baghdadi, 1997)
(Hoffmans, 1998) (El Abd, 2002) (Dargahi, 2003) (Nurmi, et al., 2006)
(Oliveto & Victor, 2009) (Abdelhaleem, 2013) (Elnikhely, 2018) and several
others, numerical model (Dehdar-behbahani & Parsaie, 2016) (Bhajantri, et al.,
2007) (Kirkgoz, et al., 2009) (Karami, et al., 2014) (Enjilzadeh & Nohani,
2016) (Ghaderi, et al., 2020), and artificial intelligence (Azamathulla, et al.,
2008), (Guven, 2011), (Abbaspour, et al., 2013) and (Saudia, 2016).
At the same time, a lot of developed stilling basins deal with structure failures
in order to reduce energy from hydraulic jump and resulted severe erosion in
the downstream. There are lot of reasons regard to the problems, since material
qualities until inappropriate designs. However, in this paper, we are discussing
about the second reason in order to looking for the effective and efficient
designs of stilling basins.

Figure 1 Stilling Basins of dam and weir failures

Figure 2 Stilling Basins of check dam and groundsill failures

For the practical condition, engineers need an appropriate structure for stilling
basin which is not only can steady the flow but also economically reliable.
Equal with it, in the modelling, engineers also need a model which not only
able to capture the problems, but also has time, space and economic efficiency.
Therefore, the urgency of aiming solution for the problems become necessary.

8429
Modelling at Stilling Basin of River Infrastructures – An Overview PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

2. Conventional approach of hydraulic jump characteristics at stilling

basin
Over a century, stilling basin has been provided as one of hydraulic structure
which successfully reduced the excess energy in supercritical flow. The
mathematical equation of this infrastructure flow characteristics developed by
continuity and momentum equation as follow:
   
Vf + (uAx ) + (vAy ) + (wAz ) = 0
t x y z (1)
 u 1  u u u  1 
 +  uAx + vAy + wAz  = − + Gx + f x
  t V F   x y  z    x
 v 1  v v v  1 
 +  uAx + vAy + wAz  = − + Gy + f y
 t V F  x  y z   y
 w 1  w w w  1 
 +  uAx + vAy + wAz  = − + Gz + f z
 t VF  x y z   z
(2)
Where Vf is the fraction of open volume to flow, ρ is fluid density, u is velocity
in x direction, y is velocity in y direction and w is velocity in the z direction,
meanwhile Ax, Ay and Az are the fraction of open level at each direction, Gx,
Gy and Gz are mass acceleration at each direction, and fx, fy and fz are
viscosity accelerations for direction x, y and z.
The problem occurred at those equations when it derived to determine position
of the hydraulic jump. Since this condition of hydraulic jump is provided the
changing of velocity distribution for x, y and z directions, therefore, the
momentum for each section will significantly increase. For this condition,
momentum equation becomes basic equation which is derived in order to
analyzed this jump.
Based on dimensional analysis, the relation between Froude analysis with the
hydraulic jump condition can derived as follows (Chow, 1959):
h  X y 
=   F , , 3 
y1  y 2 y1  (3)
Where h is height of sill, y1 is the approaching depth, y2 is the depth at the
upstream of sill, y3 is the downstream depth, and X is the jump distance to the
sill. However, lack of appropriate coefficient (ϕ) makes this analysis cannot
result the appropriate value. That is why, the variables value for design purpose
are using experimental study in the laboratory.

2.1. Laboratory Experiments

Nowadays, laboratory experiment is still recommended because it can capture
real condition compared with other modelling. However, modelling in
laboratory still has obstacles regards to time, space, and price.
From the Newton’s second law:
F = m.a (4)

8430
Modelling at Stilling Basin of River Infrastructures – An Overview PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

Where is F represents force, m is mass and a represents acceleration, 6

important forces for flow modelling which are : inertia (Fi), pressure (Fp),
gravity (FG), viscosity (Fν), elasticity (F) and surface tension (FT) should meet
their constant similarity ratio as follow:
(FI ) p (Fp )p (FG ) p (F ) p (F ) p (FT ) p
= = = = =
(FI )m (Fp )m (FG )m (F )m (F )m (FT )m (5)
(FI ) p (F )
p p (F ) (FI ) p ( .v .l )m ( .v .l )p
2 2 2 2

= → I m = →
(FI )m (Fp )m (Fp )m (Fp )p (p.l 2 )m = (p.l 2 )p
( .v ) 2
m
=
( .v ) 2
p
→ Em = E p
( )m ( ) p (6)

E=v
2 p (Euler number) (7)
(FI ) p
=
(FG ) p
→
(FI )m
=
(FI ) p
→
( .v .l )
2 2
=
( .v .l )
2 2
p

( .l .g ) ( .l .g )
m
(FI )m (FG )m (FG )m (FG ) p 3
m
3
p

(v )2
m
=
(v )2
p
→ Frm = Frp
(g.l )m (g.l ) p (8)
v
Fr =
g.l (Froude number) (9)
(FI ) p (F ) p (FI )m (FI ) p
= → = →
 .v 2 .l 2 m
=
 .v 2 .l 2 p ( ) ( )
(FI )m (F )m (F )m (F ) p (.v.l )m (.v.l ) p
( .l.v )m ( .l.v ) p
= → Re m = Re p
( )m ( ) p (10)
v.l
Re =
 (Reynold number) (11)
(FI ) p
=
(F ) p (F ) (FI ) p
→ I m = →
 .v 2 .l 2 m
=
(
 .v 2 .l 2 ) ( ) p

(FI )m (F )m (F )m (F ) p  .l 2 m  .l 2 p( ) ( )

( .v ) 2
m
=
( .v ) 2
p
→ Cam = Ca p
( )m ( ) p (12)
 .v 2
Ca =
 (Cauchy Number) (13)
(FI ) p
=
(FT ) p
→
(FI )m (FI ) p
= →
 .v 2 .l 2 m
=
(
 .v 2 .l 2 p ) ( )
(FI )m (FT )m (FT )m (FT ) p ( T .l )m ( T .l ) p
( .v .l )
2
p
=
( .v .l ) 2
m
→ We m = We p
( T ) p ( T )m (14)

8431
Modelling at Stilling Basin of River Infrastructures – An Overview PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

 .l.v 2
We =
T (Weber number) (15)

Regards to those significant forces, physical model also struggling with

dimension analysis and variable characteristics patterns on dimensional
analysis, specially to meet a fully dynamic similitude. This limitation somehow
is reducing the model accuracy.

2.2. Numerical Model

On the other hand, application of numerical modelling also using coefficient
such as K-epsilon, RNG K-epsilon and large eddy simulation (LES) to
represent flow motion in the turbulence condition (Patankar, 1980)
(Mohammadi & Pironneau, 1994) (Cebeci, 2004) (Versteeg & Malalasekera,
2007) (Bates, et al., 2008) (Pozrikidis, 2009) (Dehdar-behbahani & Parsaie,
2016). Those modelling are close with Navier-Stokes equation for modelling
vortex as turbulence model. The equations for modelling flow pattern in RNG
model are given:
  
(k ) +  (ui k ) =   k eff k  + Gk + Gb − 
t x xi  xi 
(4)

( ) +  (ui  ) =   k eff  

  
t x xi  xi 
 2
+ C1 (Gk + C3 Gb ) − C2  − R
k k (5)
Where Gk represents the rate kinetic energy creation, and R represents
turbulence density, which has formula as follows:
C   3 (1 −  / 0 )  2 k2
R= ,  t = C
1 +  3 k  (6)
Problems for this modelling type, the coefficients were derived from case study
which has local characteristics and has limitation to apply in the different
conditions.

2.2. Artificial Intelligence Model

Artificial intelligence already takes a portion to define hydraulic jump
characteristics since two decades ago. At natural artificial network, a model
which gives information based on several data from learning process as a brain
does. The model has massive parallelism and redundancy to analysis individual
computing units. Where is every individual neuron has self-organizing
structure and can processing information in many different schema (Rojas,
1996) (Indrawati, 2011) (Hadihardaja, et al., 2012).

8432
Modelling at Stilling Basin of River Infrastructures – An Overview PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

(a) (b)
Figure 3 (a) An abstract neuron; (b) Typical structure of neural network
(Rojas, 1996)
As we can see at Figure 3(a), as a primitive function, an abstract neuron has
several inputs channel which can transmit as a real value xi. Each of xi
associated with weight wi and result a primitive function f. Next, several
primitive functions f1, f2, f3 and f4 result the network function  after
multiplied with each weight α1, α2, α3 and α4. This function also evaluated at x,
y and z points.
However, the satisfied results for this model have not achieved yet. Where
traditional formula like feed forward back propagation is failed to predict scour
depth from head and discharge intensity for a ski-jump bucket spillway
(Azamathulla, et al., 2008). The formulation a multi-output descriptive neural
network (DNN) also has a lackness regards to capture relation between input
and output (depth and maximum scour location) parameters. However, DNN
gives better results compared with conventional regression equation (Guven,
2011). Further investigation shows that with using 15 hidden layers, Artificial
Neural Network (ANN) gives more satisfactory result compared with Genetic
Algorithm in order to predict non linear parameters sequent depth ratio (y2/y1),
length ratio (Lj/y1) and energy dissipation in a hydraulic jump (EL/Ei)
(Abbaspour, et al., 2013). Using 1216 experimental data, back propagation
successfully modelling length of submerged hydraulic jump (Lj/Y1) for multi-
vent regulators (Saudia, 2016).
The unsatisfactory results come from two aspects : (1) inadequate training data
data and (2) on network testing, researchers using relatively static regression.
Even though using a black-box formula, it was similar with coefficient
approach.

3. A new promising – deep learning

Nowadays, machine learning as a part of artificial intelligence successfully
studies dynamic mapping by combining classification and regression approach
in hydrology (Landschützer, et al., 2013) (Jung & et.al, 2010) (Jung & et.al,
2017) (Bonan, et al., 2011) (Anav & et.al, 2015) (Reichstein, et al., 2019), soil
mapping (Grimm, et al., 2008) (Hengl & et.al, 2017), and climate
(Landschützer, et al., 2013) (Kühnlein, et al., 2014).
This method of learning also successfully to classify and localize objects, has
super-resolution and fusion, able to predict future visual representation, even
successfully translate language with different accents. From those supremacies,

8433
Modelling at Stilling Basin of River Infrastructures – An Overview PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

a deep-learning is promising to do pattern classification, statistical downscaling

and blending, until provide dynamic time series modelling with reliable
forecasting (Reichstein, et al., 2019).
When storage volume data logarithmically increased until petabytes level, and
the other hand traditional machine learning has been struggling with data
capacity and dynamic patterns, deep learning becomes a very promising tool to
predict scouring variables based on numerous training data.

4. Conclusions
This paper discussed four models into predicting scour characteristics below
the spillway. Physical modelling still being a model which has closest
condition if compared with others. However, economic consideration and time
consumption become necessary disadvantage to capture scour conditiosn
perfectly. Both numerical and artificial intelligence have no limitation regard to
time and space. However, data demands become serious problems for
numerical modelling, especially for limited condition. For artificial intelligence
model, its dependency to physical model become the model being not efficient.
A new approach, called deep learning as extension of artificial intelligence
becomes promising tool to predict with its ability to classify, regressing and
predict and the ability to do convolutional methods makes this model become
half-dependent with physical modelling.
Table 1 Comparison of Models Characteristics

Model Physical Numerical Artificial Deep Learning

Intellegence
Advantag • Closest • inexpensive • inexpensive • able to classify,
es condition • no space • no space regressing and
compared limitation limitation state prediction
with • no time • no time limitation data
others limitation • no limitation with • has no
models • no limitation discharge/flow limitation with
with variables data storage
discharge/flo • no limitation with • promising to do
w variables complete data convolutional
• Independent availability approachment
from physical (Reichstein, et
modelling al., 2019)
Disanvant • Expensive • Struggle with • Demand for long • intradependent
ages • Space coefficient data periods on physical
limitation characteristic • Demand for a big modelling
• Time s database
limitation • Need all of • Static regression
• Hard to data derived • Dependent on
meet from formula physical
dynamic modelling
similitude (Reichstein, et
al., 2019)

8434
Modelling at Stilling Basin of River Infrastructures – An Overview PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

5. Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thanks to Institute for Research and Community Services
(LPPM) Universitas Jenderal Achmad Yani (UNJANI) for providing support
during this study.

References
Abbaspour, A., Farsadizadeh, D. & Ghorbani, M. A., 2013. Estimation of hydraulic
jump on corrugated bed using artificial neural networks and genetic
programming. Water Science and Engineering, pp. 189-198.
Abdelhaleem, F. S. F., 2013. Effect of semi-circular baffle blocks on localscour
downstream clear-overfall weirs. Ain Shams Engineering, pp. 675-684.
Anav, A. & et.al, 2015. Spatiotemporal patterns of terrestrial gross primary
production: A review. Reviews of Geophysics, 53(3).
Azamathulla, H., Deo, M. & Deolalikar, P., 2008. Alternative neural networks to
estimate the scour below spillway. Advances in Engineering Software, pp.
689-698.
Baghdadi, K., 1997. Local scour downstream drop structure. Alexandria Eng J, p. 36
(2).
Bates, P., Lane, S. & Ferguson, R., 2008. Computational Fluid Dynamics for Spillway
Modelling. Manitoba: University of Manitoba.
Bhajantri, M., Eldho, T. & Deolalikar, P., 2007. Numerical modelling of turbulent
flow through spillway with gate operation. nternational Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, pp. 221 - 243.
Blei, D. M., 2012. Probabilistic Topic Model. Communications of the ACM, 55(4), pp.
77-84.
Bonan, G. B. et al., 2011. Improving canopy processes in the Community Land Model
version 4 (CLM4) using global flux fields empirically inferred from
FLUXNET data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 116(G2).
Catakli, O., Ozal, K. & Tandogan, R., 1973. A study of scour at the end of stilling
basin and use of horizontal beams as energy dissipaters. Madrid, s.n.
Cebeci, T., 2004. Turbulence models and their application: efficient numerical
methods with computer programs. s.l.:Horizons Pub.
Chow, V. T., 1959. Open-Channel Hydraulics. Tokyo: McGraw-Hill Kogakusha,
LTD.
Dargahi, B., 2003. Scour development downstream of a spillway. J. Hydraulics Res,
pp. 41(4):417-26.
Dehdar-behbahani, S. & Parsaie, A., 2016. Numerical modelling of flow pattern in
dam spillway's guide wall. Case study: Balaroud dam, Iran. Alexandria
Engineering Journal, pp. 467-473.
Eggenberger, W., 1944. Die Kolkbildung bein einen überströmen- Unterstömen, Eth
Zürich [in Germany]: Disseration.
El Abd, S., 2002. Effect of using stilling basins on local scour downstream irrigation
structures, Egypt: El-Mansoura University.
Elnikhely, E., 2018. Investigation and analysis of scour downstream of a spillway. Ain
Shams Engineering Journal, p. 2275–2282.
Enjilzadeh, M. R. & Nohani, E., 2016. Numerical Modeling of Flow Field in Morning
Glory Spillways and Determining Rating Curve at Different Flow Rates. Civil
Engineering Journal , pp. 448-457.

8435
Modelling at Stilling Basin of River Infrastructures – An Overview PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

Ghaderi, A., Abbasi, S., Abraham, J. & Azamathulla, H. M., 2020. Efficiency of
Trapezoidal Labyrinth Shaped stepped spillway. Flow Measurement and
Instrumentation.
Grimm, R., Behrens, T., Marker, M. & and Elsenbeer, H., 2008. Soil organic carbon
concentrations and stocks on Barro Colorado Island — Digital soil mapping
using Random Forests analysis. Geoderma, 146(1-2), pp. 102-113.
Gruen, B. & Hornik, K., 2011. topicmodels: An R Package for Fitting Topic Models.
Journal of Statistical Software, 40(13), pp. 1-30.
Guven, A., 2011. A multi-output descriptive neural network for estimation of scour
geometry downstream from hydraulic structures. Advances in Engineering
Software, pp. 85-93.
Hengl, T. & et.al, 2017. SoilGrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on
machine learning. PLOSONE.
Hoffmans, G., 1998. Jet scour in equilibrium phase. J. Hydraulic Eng. ASCE, pp.
124(4):430-7.
Hsu, C. W. & Lin, C. J., 2002. A comparison of methods for multiclass support vector
machines. Taiwan, IEEE, pp. 415-425.
Jung, M. & et.al, 2010. Recent decline in the global land evapotranspiration trend due
to limited moisture supply. Nature, p. 951–954.
Jung, M. & et.al, 2017. Compensatory water effects link yearly global land CO2 sink
changes to temperature. Nature, p. 516–520.
Karami, S. P., Khosrojerdi, A. & Bajestan, M. S., 2014. Numerical Modelling of
Hydraulic Flow in Dam Stepped Spillway and Study of Cavitation
Phenomenon. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences.
Kirkgoz, M. S., Akoz, M. S. & Oner, A. A., 2009. Numerical modeling of flow over a
chute spillway. Journal of Hydraulic Research, pp. 790-797.
Kühnlein, M., Appelhans, T., BorisThies & Nauss, T., 2014. Improving the accuracy
of rainfall rates from optical satellite sensors with machine learning — A
random forests-based approach applied to MSG SEVIRI. Remote Sensing of
Environment, Volume 141, pp. 129-143.
Landschützer, P. et al., 2013. A neural network-based estimate of the seasonal to inter-
annualvariability of the Atlantic Ocean carbon sink. Biogeosciences (10), p.
7793–7815.
Lim, K. W. & Buntine, W., 2012. Twitter Opinion Topic Model: Extracting Product
Opinions from Tweets by Leveraging Hashtags and Sentiment Lexicon. Maui,
s.n.
Mohammadi, B. & Pironneau, O., 1994. Analysis of the K-epsilon turbulence model.
s.l.:Wiley.
Novak, P., 1961. Influence of bed load passage on scour and turbulence downstream.
Dubrovnik, Croatia, s.n.
Nurmi, C. et al., 2006. Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipators for Culverts and
Channels, Washington D.C: National Highway Institute.
Oliveto, G. & Victor, C., 2009. Local scour downstream of positive-step stilling
basins. Hydraulics Eng ASCE, pp. 135(10):846-51.
Patankar, S., 1980. Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow. s.l.:Taylor&Francis.
Philander, K. & Zhong, Y., 2016. Twitter sentiment analysis: Capturing sentiment
from integrated resort tweets. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Volume 55, pp. 16-24.
Pillai, N., Goel, A. & Dubey, A., 1989. Hydraulic jump type stilling basin for low
Froude numbers. Hdraulic Eng ASCE, pp. 115(7): 989-94.

8436
Modelling at Stilling Basin of River Infrastructures – An Overview PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

Pozrikidis, C., 2009. Fluid dynamics: Theory, Computation, and Numerical

Simulation. New York: Springer.
Putri, I. R. & Kusumaningrum, R., 2017. Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) for
Sentiment Analysis Toward Tourism Review in Indonesia. Journal of Physics:
Conference Series, 801(1), pp. 1-6.
Reclamation, B. o., 1978. Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basin for Pipe or Channel
Outlets, Denver: United States Government Printing Office.
Reichstein, M. et al., 2019. Deep learning and process understanding for data-driven
Earth system science. Nature, Volume 566, pp. 195-204.
Rice, C. & Kadavy, K., 1993. Protection against scour at SAF stilling basins. Hydraul
Eng ASCE, p. 119(1):133–9.
Rojas, R., 1996. Neural Network : A Systematic Introduction. Berlin: Springer.
Rokach, L. & Maimon, O., 2015. Data Mining with Decision Trees: Theory and
Applications. 2nd ed. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
Saudia, M. F., 2016. Prediction of hydraulic jump length downstream of multi-vent
regulators using Artificial Neural Network. Ain Shams Engineering Journal,
pp. 819-826.
Schoklitsch, A., 1932. Kolkbildung unter überfallstrahlen. Die-Wasserwirtschaft, p.
341 [in Germany].
Shalash, M., 1959. Die Kolkbildung beim Ausfluss unter Schützen. In: In: Diss.
Müchen: T.H. Müchen, p. [in Germany].
Tong, Z. & Zhang, H., 2016. A Text Mining Research Based on LDA Topic Modelling.
Vienna, s.n.
Uymaz, A., 1988. The Investigation of the scours originating when water passes
simultaneously over and under vertical gates. Hydraulic Eng ASCE, pp. 114
(HY 7): 811-6.
Versteeg, H. & Malalasekera, W., 2007. AN introduction to computational fluid
dynamics: The Finite Volume Method. s.l.:Pearson Education Limited.
Wang, Z. & Xue, X., 2014. Multi-class Support Vector Machines. In: Support Vector
Machines Applications. Basel: Springer International Publishing, p. 23–49.

8437